Bratton’s pre-election terrorism prediction = FAIL

Scaremonger?
Scaremonger?

So – it’s a new day in America. The majority of us decided it was time for a change from the ugly, grasping, lying, bloodthirsty stance our federal government has spent eight years building. And we put a better man in office.

The campaign horrors – all the lies, character assassination and bald-faced bullshit – it’s all been washed away in a red-white-and-blue tsunami of hope and progressive momentum.

McCain actually could be a decent guy instead of a libelous demagogue? So what.

Palin really was nothing but an undereducated prop? Meh.

But the fact that LAPD Chief William Bratton poured gas on that hellacious political wildfire by predicting a terrorist attack and now he’s been proven wrong?

Nope. I’m not willing to forgive that.

Hope the hollow shield-thumping and irresponsible (and rankly political) scaremongering was worth whatever little bureaucratic post the Obama administration gives you, Chief.

6 Replies to “Bratton’s pre-election terrorism prediction = FAIL”

  1. I can’t ding the Chief for this. The terrorist attacks in Spain came just before major elections there. An LA fireman even pointed out they felt the risk of a terrorist attack before the election had them at a heightened alert (maybe just mentally). I’m personally surprised there weren’t any more than a couple of botched assassination attempts and bogus anthrax attacks.

    Bratton may actually be great in the Obama adminstration in some sort of justice role – he’s overseen PDs in L.A. and New York, both with arguable success. But what worries me are news about rape kits backlogs and botched fingerprint analysis under his care… shameful.

  2. As for his overall tenure? He’s been a far better chief than Parks, Williams or Gates, by my inexpert estimation – the evidence backlog notwithstanding.

    Just calling shameless electioneering when I see it.

  3. The issue to me is whether (DHS Secretary) Chertoff warned L.A. and other urban police chiefs of any specific threats, or gave them a general warning to be on extra alert during this time. If so, Bratton should have mentioned that to give his statements some cred (that happens pretty frequently, so I don’t think there’s any problem in mentioning such warnings obliquely. In fact, officials often like to do so for CYA purposes if something does happen). If not, Bratton was just “going rogue” and shooting from the hip.

  4. I’m sort of with David in not faulting him for saying it (he certainly wasn’t the only one pointing the possibility out). BUT…he seemed to be asking a question that no one asked him, and he seemed to be trying to get attention for himself (like pondering Lindsay Lohan’s sexual orientation). Plus, it just seemed a bit odd for a police chief of a city–even a city as big as LA–to speak so openly about terrorism around a national election. I’m sure the LAPD is concerned about terrorism, but it just seemed like he was talking about stuff a bit outside of his station.

    I’m sure that the FBI and other people are still on high alert, however, because although the election is over with, there’s still a transition of administrations, and it was in this sort of period that the London bombings took place.

  5. My point exactly.

    If there had been a real threat, he would have either kept quiet and kept the department at readiness – or announced it through press conferences, announced that the department was on tactical alert, and followed through with a report if/when the supposed threat had been neutralized or disproven.

    Instead, Bratton authored a newspaper editorial to be published two weeks before the most hotly-contested presidential election in U.S. history.

    Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, that’s simple grandstanding.

Comments are closed.